ewen21

The White Sox, Tampa and Cleveland all had payrolls lower than ours and are still playing. Milwaukee was ranked only a couple of teams above us in payroll, won 103 games and are 2-0 on San Diego. YES, we COULD spend more money. What about identifying, raising and overseeing some pitchers who actually have an impact? What about making a bold trade rather than assuming what we have will project out to what we hope? This is a badly run organization and has been for quite some time now. Signing checks will not save it

I would wager the vast majority of the people asking for Bednar fall in two categories and most of them both categories: 1) People who think this team is better than it actually is right now. 2) People who want to see the Twins spend money because they want to see the Twins spend money

It's actually been explained by others beside me, but allow me to summarize: 1) A closer will give you how games and how many innings in a season? He was in 62 games and pitched 69 innings. 2) We are not close right now. There are too many positions on the diamond (not even getting into the shaky situation we face in starting pitching) that need to be addressed. 3) No other position in baseball goes up and down more severely than relievers and closers. If we were close Bednar makes sense. This team is at least two years off the way it currently constructed. He'd be pitching in games that are meaningless next year and possibly 2028. Are these reasons unreasonable to you?

Sweet it is was indeed to see the Yankees go down to the Rays, but it also reveals an inconvenient truth: It is not all about payroll. That was the BS excuse all those years we couldn't even win a single game against the Yankees. What was it, 12 losses in a row in the playoffs to them?

Not only that, relief pitching is about the most unpredictable commodity in baseball unless we are talking about some of the very best of all time. Most guys (even ones who made the ASG in the past) are up and down year by year. And like you say, I view this closer to part of a troubling delusion that "we are close". We are not close and as you say these quick fix. If we had actual major league talent that we can move for a strong starting pitching prospect I would be on board with that. We are not a very good team right now.

I try to amuse. Glad I can put a smile on your face.

YOu say the Twins have "proven exciting young homegrown talent emerging" right now. Remember, we are comparing this to what we already know happened in 1986. Do you see a set lineup where 7 of the 9 players play in 143 games or more? Do we have a young starting pitcher like Viola right now who won 18 games the two years prior? Do we have a veteran as good as Blyleven to throw out there? What are you talking about, man? And, we are not "worrying about 2029" it is more like we are not worried about 2027 or 2028 because it is about time to start moving guys. We have seen enough. YOu have a different, more optimistic view. That is fine with me.

I don't think you are getting his point because in 1985 and 1986 there was proven exciting young homegrown talent emerging. Puckett, Hrbek, Gaetti, Viola plus Brunansky (acquired in a trade) were absolute stalwarts in the lineup ESPECIALLY in 1986. In 1986, between Puckett, Gaetti, Hrbek and Brunansky; these men played in 161, 157, 149, 157 (respectively). Then you had Lombardozzi and Gagne both playing 156 games. ALL of these guys were all aged between 25 and 27. His point is this team has guys even older, been here a number of years already, and we need to start making decisions about them. He mentioned 2029. He's basically saying "is this guy part of the plan for 2029 or not?"

Basically set the entire roster free at this point. There isn't a player who can't be replaced. There are no "untouchables" I can see who are major league ready on the current 40 man.

Maybe there is a home for each of those players elsewhere? You are absolutely correct. Looking at this in terms of "loyalty" to a player or trying to half ass it into the playoffs on a wing and a prayer next year is something I really can't accept at this point. This is enough. I think the fanbase is ready for a nuclear winter for a year or two before a rebuild takes. Things have to be different in so many ways. Tyler Durden would be indignantly asking if we were really trying to hit rock bottom

If I see this kind of movement and direction I would be on board. This organization seems content to doggy paddle around .500, hope we catch lightning in a bottle one year and make it to the playoffs. That is the model. That along with selling us some "face of the franchise" I agree with you. If we could eject Buxton into baseball outer-space we would be so much better off and that is a start if we are going to change direction. We cannot really get much for Ryan or Lopez at the moment, but possibly could for Buxton. If we tell him before the trade deadline that he will not be resigned for 2029 I would be extremely proud of the front office. He should not be in the plan after 2028 and we should be honest with him and tell him to have a good day. If he really wants to play baseball after 2028, let it be elsewhere. We are not conscripted to have him play here for the rest of his baseball life. This the kind of backwards thinking holding us back.

Precisely this. Why are we looking for a closer with all the deficiencies we have? A closer isn't what is going to turn a team like this around. Our starting staff is nothing but a bunch of question marks all throughout the starting pitchers on our depth chart. Ryan and Lopez are our most accomplished ones and they are huge question marks to me. Lopez is following up his second TJ and Ryan had a horrendous ending to the season once again. We also have several spots on the diamond that are major concerns. This isn't stuff that can be solved by throwing money at it. This isn't hindsight when I say the Twins really needed to spend money in the free agent market in the 2000s when they had young cost controlled talent on the roster and they did not. THAT is when a mid-market team goes after the free agents and we had this silly notion that we had all the pieces already in place and that we need not "mortgage the future". How did that turn out? We do not have that kind of young talent. Sorry, but I am not interested in putting energy into a free agent closer. How about raising one somehow? Isn't in odd how guys like Varland and Jax leave us and get a lot better? Isn't it a thing that we can't draft, develop and oversee the growth of starting pitchers to a moderate amount of success?

How so? We are just talking baseball. GO off! You're saying my post was "all over the place" but where was I wrong? I do not care about making the playoffs only to get eliminated in round one over and over again. We have seen that rerun over and over again and I am beyond done with that. Had you asked me in 2000 the same question I might have a different answer for you. I used other teams in our division to highlight the absurdity of how bad it got with this organization and it reflects on literally EVERYTHING about this organization (fanbase included). The fact still remains, our team never advanced in the playoff after the initial rise in 2002. After that it was flat out pathetic and we were both there to see it. I would throw five playoff appearances away to get a WS series ring, or two trips to the series like KC had. We clearly have different views on this and we can both have valid opinions at the same time even if they are different.

I am not a Gardenhire fan and he takes a chunk of the blame for the playoff losses, but he is hardly THE reason why we did not win in the playoffs. The reasons are numerous. We lacked depth, to be real. We never really hit in the postseason. There was an attitude where the winning the division was good enough. For example, MIchael Cuddyer called 2010 a "successful season" because we "won the division" and I thought that was very telling of the mindset. Carl Pavano (of all people) said we did not really accomplish anything because we were swept out of the first round. The Yankees were good but they were not THAT GOOD. Gardy had a A LOT to do with the mindset of the Yankees being unbeatable. The Tigers (multiple times), Indians, White Sox, Angels, and Texas Rangers ALL beat the Yankees in the playoff during the "Gardy years" so it was not because of payroll or because of one single reason even though Gardy was no help. IN fact the Yankees mostly lost in the playoffs when they were not playing us.

All entirely valid and well laid out. Now cast aside injuries for a moment and take a look at performance over the life of one of those contracts. There is the other reason not to tread in that pasture. The Mets will be choked out by the Soto contract and the Jays will be with Vladdy's, etc...etc.... If you extend that timeline out far enough everyone outlives their usefulness. The long contracts are absurd. I am stuck with a dud year seven? Maybe limit the term of the contract, but contribute to an annuity during the life of the contract? To have to commit to paying a player guaranteed money five years into the future is absurd, It is beyond what is reasonable There have been examples everywhere of teams not having a large payroll IN OUR DIVISION winning in the playoffs since the new millenium. In fact, all of them have and we have not. If a team can assemble enough young cost controlled talent, that team should then grab up available free agents. If you have enough young talent that was drafted and developed inside the organization then you have an exciting team. I am particularly frustrated with the inability to draft and develop starting pitchers that are dogs. Someone, some year, coming up with a legit well-earned buzz to start on a Friday night or a weekend day game. That guy doesn't cost and we just cannot in an way seem to draft, develop and oversee the growth of someone. In over 20 years we really have only seen Garza and Berrios have that juice coming up and actually be something. Take a look at whichever team you want with payrolls near or below ours if they have better records than us. What do all of them have in common?